Helping the poor?

A couple of days ago, a frequent liberal anonymous commenter took me to task for my criticism on Hillary care and asked when readers could expect my "screed" 0n the SCHIP program.

Anonymous said...
Oh, and the SCHIP program is up for a vote this week. When
can we expect your screed against health care for children, no matter what their
family's income level? Because after all, only SOME kids deserve health care.

In my response to his/her remarks I hinted at it....today it's here.

As passed by the House, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as
SCHIP, will create a major new middle-class entitlement even as we face looming
national bankruptcy from our $50.5 trillion (yes, you read that number right) in
planned spending under Social Security and Medicare.
Today, some 6.6 million kids are covered under SCHIP, at a cost of about $25 billion over five years. The new bill raises that to 9 million kids covered, at a cost of $60 billion. It pays for it with a 61-cent hike in the tobacco tax.
Sounds good, except that tax will hit the poor hardest. And those it helps are not poor. Under the new bill, families earning $83,000 a year could be eligible. If this bill were targeted at the poor, President Bush and the Republicans wouldn't oppose it. But it isn't. It's a new, radically expanded middle-class entitlement.
That, by the way, includes families like the Siravos of New Jersey, profiled recently by Bloomberg News. The Siravos earn $56,000 a year, own their own home and drive two used cars. They also pay $9,000 a year to send their only child to a private
school.

So a family that can afford to send their kid to private school is eligible for SCHIPS under the new program? I thought that this program was for the poor who couldn't afford health care?

One comment that this editorial hammers on is the fact that these taxes ARE regressive...they hit the poor the hardest! Smoking taxes are regressive taxes - a dirty little secret that most politicians don't want you to know. IBD asks a very important question in this editorial.

Yes, things are a bit tight for the Siravos, as with many American families. But should the working poor subsidize health care for the Siravos and other
middle-class families?

Emphasis mine. Not only is are the working poor subsidizing middle class kids in this program but they are also subsidizing adults.

There are other problems. For instance, far from being "about the children,"
SCHIP already covers 670,000 adults. The new law will increase that.

The ironic thing is that right now Democrats (like my anonymous commenter) are trying to use SCHIPS as a hammer....beating Republicans over the head with accusations of the being against "health care for children". The problem is that FACT and history do not back up those accusations.

Ironically, a Republican-controlled Congress created SCHIP in 1997 to help the
poor — those up to 200% of the poverty level.

Woops - that's gonna smart. What is going to hurt those same Demcorats even more is this little fact.

But Democrats, along with many state governors, now want to expand that to up to
400% of the poverty rate — or $83,000 for a family of four. That's
upper-middle-class, not poor.

Emphasis again mine.

If the Democrats (like my anonymous commenter) really gave a fig about "the poor" they would not be pushing to hit the poor with a huge "sin tax" on tobacco in order to subsidize middle class health care and they would work on ways to get better health care to those who really need it....the people who are not making $50,000 plus a year. The real poor of the country.

Middle class citizens in this country (like the Logical Household) can and do afford to have their own health care. SCHIPS should be for the children of the POOR who can not afford their own health care. Not adults or families making almost $100,000 a year (like the Siravos and the Logicians). We can afford to take care of our own families...

UPDATE AND BUMP: The New York Times carries an Op/Ed today that continues the discussion of the tobacco tax being a burden on the poor with some statisics.

Instead, this program is funded by raising taxes on smokers,
who generally are much poorer than average Americansand much less educated. High school dropouts smoke at roughly three times the rates of college graduates.

They are also among the most demoralized people in society. Recent sociological
research shows that most Americans regard smoking as a sign of low-class,
unattractive behavior — and most smokers see it this way, too. Research by Kip
Viscusi of Harvard suggests that smokers actually overestimate the dangers of
their habit; they believe they are killing themselves even faster than they
really are.

The S-chip bill takes money from these relatively poor, politically immobilized people and shifts it to those making up to $62,000 a year. Nobody is raising a tax on wine consumption or gasoline consumption to pay for this benefit. Instead, Congress is taxing the weakest possible group in order to shift benefits to others, some of whom are middle class.

Emphasis is mine.

Well my anonymous friend. Would you care to defend this attack on the poor? Or are you just going to continue to spout the talking points about how this is all "for the children"?